Section 80P deduction claims must be tested on actual credit ies and liberal interpretation after Mavilayi ruling.

A co-operative society's deduction claim on interest income under section 80P(2)(a)(i) required reconsideration after the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT held that section 80P is a benevolent provision to be construed liberally and that eligibility depends on the actual nature of the society's credit activities. The Tribunal noted that the earlier view on the interest income's ineligibility under sections 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) had to be tested against that ruling, and therefore directed fresh examination of the deduction claim on the correct legal footing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income required fresh examination in the light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT.

Analysis: The assessee, a primary agricultural credit society, had claimed deduction on income shown as interest from investments and related deposits. The revision under section 263 rested on the view that such interest was not eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) and was also not covered by section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT held that section 80P is a benevolent provision, must be construed liberally, and that a co-operative society providing credit facilities to its members is entitled to the deduction, subject to examination of the actual character of the transactions. In view of that ruling, the Tribunal considered it appropriate that the Assessing Officer re-examine the deduction claim on the correct legal footing.

Conclusion: The issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination under section 80P(2)(a)(i) in accordance with the Supreme Court's dictum.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim under section 80P by a co-operative society must be tested in accordance with the actual nature of its credit activities and construed liberally in favour of eligibility, requiring fresh consideration where the earlier view is inconsistent with the governing Supreme Court interpretation.

---